Fry v. Calder
| Decision Date | 30 September 1884 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Fry et al. vs. Calder et al. |
Attorney and Client. Liens. Vendor and Purchaser. Notice. Before Judge Hammond. Fulton Superior Court. March Term, 1884.
Reported in the decision.
Geo. T. Fry; A lex. C. King, in propriis personis, for plaintiffs in error.
Jackson & King, for defendants.
Fry and King filed a petition before the superior court against Calder and the Chess-Carley Company, setting up a lien as attorneys at law upon certain real estate, sold by Calder to said company, pending litigation between certain mechanics and contractors, in which litigation petitioners successfully defended the property against claims amounting to some five or six hundred dollars, so as to reduce them to some sixty dollars, for which they claimed fees of eighty dollars, and prayed that defendants show cause why they did not pay said fees. The petition alleges that, in the contract of sale from Calder to the Chess-Carley Company, mention is made of these several claims of mechanics and contractors\' liens, and from the price at which the property is estimated, deduction is to be made of the amount legally ascertained to be due upon them.
On demurrer to this petition, the court held that the petitioners had no lien on the property, and refused the rule to show cause. On that judgment error is assigned.
1. If the property still belonged to Calder, who employed the counsel, their lien would be good. Section 1989 of the Code, among other things on which the lien of attorneys attaches, recites that " upon all suits for the recovery of real or personal property, and upon all judgments and decrees for the recovery of the same, attorneys at law shall have a lien on the property recovered for their fees, " etc. These suits resulted in the recovery of this real estate from a claim of some five hundred dollars upon it, operating upon it as liens if the other side had been successful, and by virtue of which liens the property could be sold under the sheriff's hammer. To the amount of the reduction of these liens from what was claimed to the trifle found due, this real estate was successfully defended, and from their clutch, to the extent of the amount reduced, this house and lot was recovered. It makes no difference whether the recovery be by the defence or by the plaintiff. The successful counsel on the one or the other side is entitled to his lien.
Therefore the conclusion seems irresistible, that if Calder had not sold to the Chess-Carley Company, the lien ofcounsel for fees for successfully defending his property against the grasp of lien creditors would be good.
2. How does this sale to the company affect it? Is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Byrd
...Elliott v. Orton, 69 Okl. 233, 171 P. 1110, L.R.A.1918E, 103), in this State the contrary rule applies. Code, § 9-613, par. 5. In Fry v. Calder, 74 Ga. 7, it was 'Attorneys who were employed to resist the liens claimed by mechanics and contractors on real estate, amounting to five or six hu......
-
Brotherton v. Stone
... ... allowed to attorneys at law employed by serving in defense ... against such suits in case the defense is successful.' ... Code, § 9-613(5); Prudential Insurance Co. v. Byrd, ... 188 Ga. 527(1), 529, 4 S.E.2d 175, and cit.; Fry v ... Calder, 74 Ga. 7(1), 8 ... 3 ... 'The rule to be deduced from the decisions construing ... laws similar to our own, which give attorneys' liens, is ... that the lien attaches to the fruits of the labor and skill ... of the attorney, whether realized by judgment [197 Ga. 75] or ... ...
-
Br0therton v. Stone
...case the defense is successful." Code, § 9-613(5); Prudential Insurance Co. v. Byrd, 188 Ga. 527(1), 529, 4 S.E.2d 175, and cit.; Fry v. Calder, 74 Ga. 7(1), 8. 3. "The rule to be deduced from the decisions construing laws similar to our own, which give attorneys' liens, is that the lien at......
-
Merch.S' Nat. Bank Of Rome v. Armstrong
...is definitely fixed by statute in this state, and has been repeatedly recognized by decisions of this court Civ. Code, § 2814; Fry v. Calder, 74 Ga. 7; Lovett v. Moore, 98 Ga. 158, 20 S. E. 498; Coleman v. Austin, 99 Ga. 029, 27 S. E. 763. But we gather from the grounds of the demurrer file......